Share this

Many will remember Jack Kemp as the leading apostle of supply side tax cuts and fewer will recall his staunch advocacy of civil rights, even when it meant standing up to his fellow party conservatives, as he did when he opposed Pete Wilson's anti-immigrant initiatives. But I will always think of him as a thoroughly decent and positive force in the Halls of Congress. Jack was a happy warrior who never really held a grudge or belittled an opponent. Although completely convinced of the tenets of his varied causes, Jack never became bitter or disillusioned. In his view, it was only a matter of time before you would be converted and so he never gave up his calling, the leading Republican message meister of his era.

I had the good fortune to share office space with Jack Kemp the last several years. It was one of those little twists in life that have a big impact.

I had worked for Dole/Kemp ’96 as a junior staffer, and had gotten to see Kemp in prime time on the campaign trail (#15 with the little white footballs). That was fun, but I never really got to know much beyond the public image. Over the last two years of his life, I got to know him. He loved the game and the debate, and my own involvement in national politics became the source of a regular stream of Kemp-isms in the form of advice, critique, and good natured fun. Exhortations about race, tolerance, a bigger narrative for the GOP, a rib about a TV appearance…..and of course that fierce commitment and philosophy about exactly how to right the ship of the shaky US Economy. He loved to challenge assumptions, loved a good debate, and brought so much energy and fire to the process.

He died surrounded by family, the other great hallmark of his life. It was always the kids and the grand kids. That legacy, coupled with an amazing career in the public life will be remembered for a long, long time.

I liked and respected Jack Kemp. I remember in the late 1970's as a young staffer for Senator Frank Church being called into Church's office. He had sat next to Kemp on a long plane flight from the West Coast and they began talking about tax policy. Church was impressed with his ideas and he sent me over to Kemp's office to pick up material that Kemp had put together on his tax cut, later to morph into the famous Kemp-Roth tax bill. I expected to just act as the errand boy but was surprised to find Kemp in his office and anxious to walk a young bushy haired liberal through his "Kennedy-style" tax cut ideas. He wasn't a doctrinaire, knee-jerk politician but someone who thought outside the box. He was a fierce advocate as HUD Secretary of those who needed help. He was also enthusiastic and up-beat. He was in politics for all the right reasons. He cared about people. I may not have become a full-fledged advocate for his tax policies but I never questioned his motives or his desire to improve the lives of average Americans. We need more Jack Kemps in public life.

It’s important to put Jack Kemp in perspective. Jack Kemp was my friend. He was my colleague; we served together in the House Republican leadership and sat next to each other as the top-ranking Republicans on the House Foreign Operations Subcommittee. I spent hours with him and I liked and admired him. But that is strictly a personal story, and jack Kemp’s loss is more than a personal story.

To look at jack's legacy, and to consider what we have lost with his passing, is to revisit fundamental questions not only about our political party but about America. By all modern definitions, Jack Kemp was "conservative"; he was a religious man, he believed in a strong defense and low taxes, and he put his confidence more in individual achievement than government action. He believed in freedom not merely as a private benefit but as an engine for collective good. Unlike many who pose as conservatives today, jack's beliefs, and his attitudes, were consistent messages of optimism and hopefulness.

Most of us have at least two sides, and often more, to our personalities; Jack was missing was one of those possibilities -- he could be buoyant and happy or frustrated and angry, but never, never dour; no black cloud hovered over jack's head.

This is a personal note because Jack was a personal friend, but the bigger message of Jack's life is one his fellow Republicans must take to heart. It was a message of inclusion, of support, of compassion, of a belief in government that was limited but not absent; that rewarded individual accomplishment but understood that some among us need the help of the community; that adherence to religious values comes from internal commitment, not from being imposed by others. Jack was both color-blind (he did not distinguish based on race) and color-sensitive (he saw the ways in which minorities were harmed by bigotry and discrimination and worked, in congress and in the cabinet, to overcome those inequities).

Our party, Jack's and mine, is now the subject of many serious discussions about its future direction. Jack had much to say about that: a year ago, I invited him to speak on a panel I was chairing on that subject for the Aspen Institute. He came and held a large audience, which included Colin Powell and Michael Chertof, spellbound. So here's a tip to my fellow Republicans who are looking for a way back from the disrepute into which they have fallen. Read Jack Kemp’s books, read his speeches, understand his passion. Stand for the principles Jack Kemp stood for and lived by. Do it not to honor jack -- the life he lived is sufficient honor -- but to build a party on the foundation he put in place. That, in true jack Kemp fashion, will serve not just individual interest but the nation and everybody in it -- men, women, gay, straight, black, white, Asian -- all of us.

I wrote up a detailed post on why schools close, and when they open because of H1N1, so that folks understand what public heath officials are trying to do. In a nutshell, they are trying to hit the sweet spot between not closing schools and day care too early and not closing too late. The entire team, including HHS and DHS secretaries and Acting CDC Director Richard Besser is doing a terrific job communicating that. And, as the week progresses and more data is available, those interim suggestions may well change.

Jack Kemp was the reason I became a Republican. He described himself as a "bleeding heart conservative," and if it hadn't been for the bleeding heart part, I'd probably be out here in the political wilderness with the Democratic Leadership Council folks instead of the GOP. He deserves much better than to be lumped together with the "country club" component of our party that has neither experienced life at the economic edge nor cares for those without the means to escape it.

And that's what Jack's empathetic philosophy was all about: give poor people the tools to succeed in the American economy, and do it as a matter of right and of fairness. It contrasts with Obama's, which prefers to punish and transfer wealth rather than allow all to share in its creation. While Jack and Obama may have been equally comfortable walking the slums of Chicago's South Side or Washington's Anacostia, only Kemp believed that poor people were smart enough to deserve the freedom of choice and similar paths to success that the rich enjoy. Looking down, Jack will no doubt smile at the nice things the President will say at his funeral, and then wish he could throw an arm around his new best buddy Barack and drag him along to meet Kimi Gray and tour a tenant-owned housing project.

Sure, Jack could be irascible at times, and he always seemed to have way too many balls in the air. At HUD he was considered a miserable manager. When I introduced him once at a major convention speech, he was thirty minutes late and spoke entirely from notes he had scribbled onto the back of the morning's Wall Street Journal just minutes before. But, like Susan Boyle, when he opened his mouth the sound was as pure and inspiring as anything I had ever heard. He deeply believed every liberating and optimistic word he said, and wanted you to believe it too. I did.

Apparently I’m not the only one who was offended by much of the dialogue regarding Justice Souter’s replacement. Many have now written about the incongruence of a position that is supposed to place the best, while consideration of race or gender preferences appear to be the first descriptor that will or should lead the president to make a decision.

Brookings fellow Benjamin Wittes said it well this morning when noting a few potential nominees that, because they are mostly white will likely never make it on the list. “I have nothing against the people whose names have so far been floated as possible nominees and I’m not against diversity on the high court," said Wittes. "That said, there are significant costs to the nominating system that we have developed in which gender, ethnicity and age have, from the very start of the search… have placed off-limits many lawyers and judges whose colleagues regard as some of the best in the profession.”

While these highly qualified individuals get benched from consideration of the bench, there appears to be a complete lack of appreciation by the nation’s leadership and pundits about what a justice is or should be. That Michigan Governor Jennifer Granholm, for example, because she has a law degree and once occupied a top legal position in her state would be even considered about the ranks of people whose position it is to intensively know and have studied the Constitution, the Founders, years of precedent and the idea and practice of law itself is incomprehensible. Not all justices have had such credentials but all should be required to be a student of the Constitution and be able to sit on the High Court bench having devoted at least a large part of their adult life studying what it is, how it came to be and how it should be guarded and interpreted.

Smart politicians can continue to be smart politicians. But this nation — now perhaps more today than ever before — needs this particular branch of government to be full of scholars who are able to step out of the day to day execution of laws, not people whose careers have trained them in the art of compromise and catering to the electorate.

American-style TV debates have become increasingly infuential around the world

I have just returned from a week in Spain, where I took part in a series of panel discussions comparing the American presidential debates of 2008 with their Spanish counterparts. American-style TV debates have become increasingly influential around the world, with some 60 countries now incorporating debates as a feature of their national elections.

The example of Spain offers interesting parallels to our experience in the U.S. The 2008 joint appearances between Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero and Mariano Rajoy marked the end of a 15-year dry spell for presidential debates in Spain, much as America saw a gap of 16 years between the Kennedy-Nixon debates and the subsequent round between Gerald Ford and Jimmy Carter in 1976. As in the U.S., TV debates in Spain are incredibly popular, drawing audiences of more than half the eligible voters. In both countries, debates function as media marathons, sparking intense press coverage both before and after.

Key differences exist as well. Spanish debates employ a format that American presidential candidates have successfully avoided since 1960: direct dialogue with minimal intervention from the moderator. Candidates in Spain go after each other with a level of aggression that U.S. politicians would find uncomfortable and inappropriate. Although this structure prevents Spanish debaters from hiding behind 60-second responses and 30-second rebuttals, it also creates drawbacks. With the moderator essentially reduced to the role of timekeeper, there is no opportunity to hold the candidates accountable for their statements, or to seek clarification for particularly dubious statements.

Increasingly, televised debates are becoming a fixture in elections around the world, generating the same disputes over participation, inclusion, sponsorship, format, and media coverage that we relive every four years in the United States. Lest there be any doubt about the degree to which debates have become standardized internationally, consider this: last week Mahmoud Ahmadinejad signaled his willingness to appear in Iran’s first-ever presidential debates before voters in that nation go to the polls next month. If Ahmadinejad makes good on his promise, candidates in more democratically inclined countries will have no excuse but to take part in their own debates. To the chagrin of politicians the world over, this voter-friendly, American-made campaign ritual is here to stay.

Last night, my friend and philosophical mentor former Cabinet Secretary and Republican Congressman Jack Kemp lost his battle with cancer and passed away. Bona Park, one of his staffers, told me that as recently as last Sunday that Jack had had a good day, but that his cancer had accelerated rapidly from Sunday through last night. Jack’s effusive optimism and evangelical belief in the power of free-market capitalism to create wealth and upward mobility for all Americans inspired a generation of conservatives. As I posted here it was Jack Kemp, more so than Ronald Reagan, who inspired me as a college student in the late 1970s and early 1980s to study economics and become involved in politics.

Jack was best known for championing supply-side economics, which transformed the Republican Party from a minority party of austerity in the 1970s to the majority party of opportunity and growth it became under Ronald Reagan in the 1980s and beyond. But Jack was also an indefatigable champion for expanding freedom and democratic capitalism (with small “d” as he used to say) across the globe, for empowering the working poor in America’s distressed urban and rural communities, and for broadening the Republican Party’s appeal to African-Americans, Hispanics and other minorities by bringing it back to the Party of Abraham Lincoln.

Jack Kemp was a great admirer of America’s 16th President. He had a bust of Abraham Lincoln that followed him from his Congressional office in the Rayburn Building to the Secretary’s office at the Department of Housing and Urban Development to HUD to his very modest office at Kemp Partners in downtown Washington D.C. In his last syndicated column in February, Jack Kemp wrote a glowing tribute to Abraham Lincoln, in which he describes “Lincoln’s view of the ‘American ideal’ – that the principles enunciated in America's Declaration of Independence are universal, and that freedom is not just for some people, but for all people, and not just for one time, but for all time.”

Kemp further writes: “For Abraham Lincoln, true welfare meant not dependency, but well-being; not equality of reward, but equality of opportunity; not reliance on the state, but reliance on oneself and one's family. He wrote, prophetically, The progress by which the poor, honest, industrious and resolute man raises himself, that he may work on this own account and hire somebody else ... is the great principle for which this government was really formed.’” Kemp cites another quote from Lincoln, which provides some lessons for today: "I don't believe in a law to prevent a man from getting rich; it would do more harm than good. ... I want every man to have the chance -- and I believe a black man is entitled to it -- in which he can better his condition -- when he may look forward and hope to be a hired laborer this year and the next, work for himself afterward, and finally to hire men to work for him! That is the true system."

Jack Kemp, lived the American Dream, growing up in Los Angeles, California in the 1940s and 1950s, where his father turned a motorcycle messenger service into a trucking company that grew from one to fourteen trucks. He became a professional football quarterback leading his teams to two American Football League championships in the 1960s. In the 1970s and 1980s, he led the Republican Party to the majority through the power of his ideas. Today’s Republicans can learn much from Jack Kemp’s progressive conservative or “Lincolnesque” philosophy as they look for ways to become relevant again.

For me, Jack was an inspiration, a mentor and a friend. I will miss him greatly.

Jack Kemp’s passing is the death of an American Conservative Icon. Most noted for his strong fiscal conservative values, he believed in low taxes, small government and supply side economics. We remember with great admiration and respect his crafting of the Economic Recovery Act of 1981 where under the Administration of Ronald Reagan, he helped pass sweeping economic reforms that led to the great prosperity we experienced during that time and helped fuel the “Reagan Revolution." It was too bad he wasn’t 20 years younger, because if ever we needed Jack Kemp it is now. The very opposite of what he believed and advocated his entire professional life has now come to be with this new administration, higher taxes, bigger government, socialized medicine, weaker defense, etc. Jack Kemp although very set in his economic ways was less so on social issues like immigration.

Jack Kemp lived the American Dream. He was a college football star, a professional football star, he served in he Army reserves, he was an entrepreneur, a journalist, a Congressman, a Cabinet Secretary, a Presidential Candidate, a Vice Presidential running mate, an author, a lecturer, a man of faith, a family man, and a patriot who loved his country.

He will be missed by all Americans who believe in the American Spirit and believe that anything is possible, if you put your mind and heart to it. God Speed, Jack Kemp.

Jack French Kemp, R.I.P. Jack Kemp was our Prometheus. Jack Kemp brought fire to Republicankind. Without his revolutionary tax cut proposals, Kemp –Roth, there might never have been a Reagan Revolution. Ronald Reagan adopted Kemp’s proposal and it became a central tenet to the Gipper’s brand of optimistic conservatism, which puts it faith in the citizenry rather than the state. For many years, from enterprise zones to trade proposals to national defense, Kemp was a one man think tank, as part of a crew of radical thinkers which led the GOP’s comeback starting in the late 1970’s. He did not shrink from challenging the orthodoxy of either Washington or the Republican Party. His boundless optimism was contagious and his patriotism was to be admired. Kemp was also a good man, a good husband, a good father and a devout Christian. The conservative movement and the Republican Party have lost a good friend.

Jack Kemp once called Ronald Reagan, “The last great lion of the twentieth century.” But Kemp was also
a great roaring lion for America’s working man and woman.

I first met Jack Kemp in December 1976. He was in his congressional office putting on a tuxedo to attend the last formal event in Gerald Ford’s White House and I was there interviewing for a job. I remember that he asked me if I was a “supply side fiscalist,” a term I had never heard before in my life. So naturally I said yes; what did I have to lose? I got the job and worked for Jack as his staff economist for the next two years, during which time supply-side economics was born.

The thing I will most remember about Jack was his enthusiasm. He had the amazing capacity to say the same thing over and over and over again with equal enthusiasm every time. He had the soul of an evangelist and was, therefore, the perfect spokesman for supply-side economics. He was able to do what none of the “eggheads” like Art Laffer, Bob Mundell, or Jude Wanninski could do—Jack could make people believe that tax cuts were their salvation.

No matter how many years went by, whenever I would see Jack it was always as if I was still one of his staffers. And whenever I heard him speak I always continued to hear bits and pieces of ideas and rhetoric that I think I may have planted in his mind.

We have lost an outstanding American. Jack Kemp was a statesman who, especially in his later years, tried to reach across the aisle to solve some of our nation’s problems. He was deeply concerned about the struggles of urban America, especially those of inner city youth. His voice will be deeply missed.

Support for a dramatically different direction for U.S policy toward the Israeli-Arab conflict.

During the next month, the President will host a number of a Middle East leaders as he formulates his strategy to jump start Arab- Israeli peace efforts. Should the President seek to pursue a path different from that of his predecessor, he will find that he has the strong support of those who voted for him in November, 2008.

In a Zogby International interactive poll conducted in April, 2009, we found that while, overall, a majority of Americans want a change in US policy, the electorate divided on issues related to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, with voters who backed Barack Obama and John McCain holding dramatically divergent views on the conflict, what should be done to solve it, and the role the U.S. ought to play. The survey engaged 4,230 U.S. adults, and has a margin of error of plus or minus 1.5%. It found that substantial majorities (of all groups) believed: that a resolution of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is important; that the conflict negatively impacts U.S. interests in the Middle East; that both Israelis and Palestinians are entitled to equal rights; and that there should be a Palestinian state. Overall, the survey established that, while favorable attitudes toward Israel remain strong, pluralities of Americans believe that President Obama should pursue a policy less supportive of Israel than his predecessor. They believe he ought to “get tough” with Israel on settlements, and “steer a middle course between Israel and the Palestinians.”
These findings, however, mask the deep divide within the electorate.

Attitudes toward U.S.-Israeli Relations

Americans do support Israel, to be sure. But, are the interests of the two countries identical, and does its support for Israel strengthen or weaken the U.S.? Three quarters of voters who supported John McCain believe that the interests of the U.S. and Israel are identical. Nearly as many believe that the U.S. is strengthened by its support of Israel. Obama voters, however, strongly disagree with both propositions, with more than one half disagreeing that the interests of the two countries are the same. Similarly, half of Obama voters believe the U.S. is weakened by its support for Israel, with only one in five seeing the U.S. as strengthened. When asked which is more important to the U.S.— relations with Israel, the Arabs, or both – only 7% of Obama voters say Israel, 17% say the Arabs, and 68% say both. On the other hand, 46% of McCain voters say that the U.S. relationship with Israel is most important, only 3% emphasize relations with the Arabs, while 48% say both. It appears from the results of the survey that the recent war in Gaza served to widen the gap between the two groups of voters. Half of Obama supporters said that war made them less supportive of Israel, while two-thirds of McCain voters actually say that the Gaza war made them more supportive of Israel.
What Should the U.S. Do?

Predictably, McCain voters saw Bush as an honest broker (by an 84%-8% margin). Obama voters disagreed by an equally overwhelming margin. But what should President Obama do? When asked, 73% of those who voted for President Obama say he should “steer a middle course,” with only 10% saying he should support Israel and 6% saying support the Palestinians. Wildly different responses come from the McCain voters, 60% of whom say the current President should support Israel! Only 22% of McCain supporters say the President should be balanced in his approach to the conflict. Engage with Hamas? By a 67%-16% margin Obama voters say yes, while 79% of McCain voters say no. And should the U.S. get tough with Israel? 80% of Obama voters say it is time to get tough, with 73% Of McCain voters disagreeing.
Solving Final Status Issues

Even when it comes to solving critical final status issues, the two camps hold positions that are mirror opposites of one another. Do Palestinians have the right of return? Obama voters agree they do by a margin of 61%-13%, while McCain voters disagree, 21%-51%. Should Jerusalem be divided and serve as the capital of two states, or remain under sole Israeli control? Obama voters prefer the “divided” and “two capitals” option with McCain voters overwhelmingly supporting Jerusalem as the undivided capital of Israel. Similarly, a majority of Obama voters believe Israel should be made to remove its settlements from occupied Palestinian lands, while a majority of McCain voters believe the settlements should stay.

Two Observations.

The depth of this partisan divide is instructive on many levels. First and foremost, it establishes that, despite the claim of hard-line supporters of Israel, traditional U.S. policy toward the Israeli-Palestinian conflict does not have bipartisan backing. In fact, as the two parties have evolved over the past thirty years, and as the issue itself has evolved – since Oslo – each of the two parties have moved in different directions. The dominant role of the religious right, which now comprises up to one-third of the base of the Republican Party, coupled with the degree to which neo-conservativism has come to define the world view of that party, have contributed to a significant reorientation of the GOP. These two strands of thought were brought together by George W. Bush, who also embraced Ariel Sharon, and, post-9/11, characterized the struggles of Israel and the U.S. as identical. As a result, it now appears that the GOP is no longer the party of George Herbert Walker Bush and James Baker, but an entirely new entity. Meanwhile, the base of the Democratic Party, has come to be defined by progressives (including a significant number of progressive Jews) and minority communities who have grown weary of Bush’s ideological approach to conflict. They have come to reject his policies and recoil from their consequences.

Obama’s victory, therefore, represents not only the election of a new President, but the victory of a new coalition whose component parts support an anti-war, pro-peace and pro-human rights agenda. This coalition, our poll findings demonstrate, can provide the support the new President needs, should he decide on a dramatically different direction for U.S policy toward the Israeli-Arab conflict.

Public health folks are doing a terrific job staying on top and ahead of the H1N1 (swine flu) epidemic, which is both local and world-wide. As is often the case, public health officials have to walk a fine line between informing and inflaming the public.

In this case, there are a lot of things that really need explaining: what a pandemic is (based on spread, not severity), why there are school closure with only a handful of cases, why this appears to be no worse than season flu, yet isn't seasonal flu and has to be treated differently, etc.

If they do their job, there'll be the appearance of over-reacting. If they don't there'll be the appearance of being asleep at the switch. Richard Besser (Acting Director, CDC) in particular, and the entire team is doing very well, but there's a lot more to explain, including that the virus could be back in the fall, that vaccine will take six months to produce (and even then, will need to be prioritized to essential workers first), and that CDC doesn't decide if your local school closes... and when it re-opens. Behind the scenes, communication has also been excellent. In a way, this is a country-wide tabletop for a worse event that still may come. But don't judge things just yet. This story is still in the early chapters.

Steve Steckler suggests that the only reason some states do a better job of overseeing social programs than other is because some states have a larger tax base. This simply is not true.

States like Florida and Texas fail to fund social programs because, as one Texas physician put it to me: “Texas never has taken care of its poor and it never will.” This story ran on Dallas Local News in January: “For the weak and the vulnerable, Texas has long been an especially hard place. Year after year, national surveys place the state at or near the bottom in such categories as assistance to poor children and the malnourished, treatment of the mentally ill and care of the disabled. This story is part of The Dallas Morning News' 'State of Neglect' series examining how the state determines whom it protects and whom it excludes – and how special interests and their lobbyists strongly influence the writing of laws and the workings of state government.”

When it comes to education Texas ranks #49 nationwide in verbal SAT scores in the nation (493) and #46 in average math SAT scores l Texas is #36 in the nation in high school graduation rates (68%). When compared to other states, Texas ranks #40 in expenditures for public K-12 schools per student; in fiscal year 2005 ($7,142) (According to the National Education Association,Texas was the only state in the nation to cut per pupil spending in fiscal year 2005.)

As for Florida, in 2003 it “capped” the number of children that it would cover under SCHIP and put 91,000 eligible on a “waiting list” for nearly a year. When the media broke the story, legislators quickly found a solution: they enrolled the children on the waiting list (proving that they did, indeed have the funds to cover them) and then eliminated the waiting list—so that in the future no one would know how may eligible children were being denied care. At the same time, “the legislature removed many of the state’s simplified renewal policies, replacing them with new rules that would suppress future enrollment. Specifically, the state moved to periodic, rather than year-round, enrollment; stopped allowing families to "self-declare" income at application; and moved from a "passive" renewal process to a more traditional "active" process whereby families must update their information and submit new income verification to continue coverage. By December 2004, with these policies in place, enrollment in Florida’s SCHIP program had dropped by nearly 66,000 children, or 20 percent.” (from the journal,“Health Affairs”)

This has nothing to do with “fiscal disparities.” Florida and Texas are not poor the way Alabama is poor. A legacy of racism and ignorance has steered public policy in these states. Children who have the bad luck to be born poor in Florida and Texas –instead of, say, Minnesota—do not deserve to be left to the mercy of states like these. This why the Federal government must run and oversee programs designed to serve the public good.

Maggie, your sympathetic point is well taken, but your reading of my proposal, your data and your conclusions are not. You are suggesting that elected governments in Texas and Florida just can't be trusted to do your idea of the right thing, in contrast perhaps to those in California, Michigan or New Jersey, not coincidentally three of the nation's worst fiscal basket cases. Seems the feds might do better to put those three "enlightened" states into receivership and let Texas and Florida continue their evil ways. But back to my opening point:

First, contrary to your point, I did not propose to eliminate or transfer responsibility for the federal EITC, food stamps, SCHIP, Medicaid or other income and health programs to the state level. I happen to believe, like you apparently do, that basic household income support is a legitimate federal concern, though we don't do enough to adjust such transfer payments according to the local cost of living. This admittedly liberal-to-moderate perspective is reflected in my proposal. Education is different matter.

Second, you used disparate SAT scores to justify federal intrusion into K-12 education, yet test scores are driven almost entirely by household income and parental education, not per-pupil spending (despite spending more than twice what Texas does pupil, the District of Columbia is ranked #51 in test scores). Your data was apparently also unadjusted for regional cost of living differences or the percentage of pupils whose parents are non-native speakers, another major score-killer. Adjust for those factors and you'll need to alter your conclusion.

Finally, several recent studies of state fiscal capacity and spending, including one by the Brookings Institution, have found that poor states taxed themselves at a higher rate of their fiscal capacity compared to richer states. Moreover, a higher share of the fiscal capacity in poor states went to spending on social services. Considering these finding and the other information above, it's awfully hard to see why we need to run everything from Washington once we've taken care of incomes and fiscal capacity.

As Barack Obama prepares to nominate his first Supreme Court Justice, one hopes that some members of the Senate Judiciary Committee will use the occasion to discuss the idea of fixed terms for Justices. Unlimited lifetime tenure was never the intention of the Founders, who provided only that judges would “hold their Offices during good Behaviour.” Lives were much shorter in the 1700s and, with a few exceptions, justices served for relatively short periods. Does anyone seriously believe that the Founders would not have limited judicial terms had they realized that Justices would eventually become extremely powerful and serve for decades, often into their 70s, 80s, and even 90s? (And congratulations to Justice Souter for setting a good example and leaving at a reasonable age.)

With fixed terms and regular rotation, every President would get a certain number of appointments to reflect a fresh electoral mandate. More important, the anti-democratic element of unlimited tenure, which breeds arrogance and elite isolation in the Court, would be removed from our system. I have advocated for a 15-year non-renewable term in my book, A More Perfect Constitution, while a large group of prominent legal scholars of varying ideologies has recently recommended an 18-year term.

Here’s what John Roberts had to say on the subject: “A judge insulated from the normal currents of life for 25 or 30 years was a rarity [in the Republic’s early decades] but is becoming more commonplace today. Setting a limit of, say, 15 years would ensure that federal judges would not lose all touch with reality through decades of ivory tower existence.” There’s just one catch. This was the view of Roberts during his time in Ronald Reagan’s Justice Department. As Chief Justice, he’s revised his thinking, since where one stands in Washington depends on where one sits. But the less personally interested Roberts of the 1980s was right, and term limits for Justices is an idea that deserves serious consideration. This change won’t come soon or easily, for sure, but would it hurt us to entertain a new idea every now and then?

I will put in a plug for an area that I work on and care about a lot -- how in a time of scarce resources for foreign aid, a lot of aid money gets wasted and never reaches the world's most desperately poor people because of the incompetence of the aid agencies like the World Bank and USAID. And how they keep getting away with it, because nobody cares.

Like how a report yesterday by the World Bank's own evaluation unit found that the Bank was grossly mismanaging funds for addressing critical global health problems like malaria and TB that kill millions:

Or how USAID got caught wasting millions of dollars in Afghanistan by handing it over to the UN without any oversight, but there were no adverse consequences for anyone involved:

A Radical R.I.N.O. Budget Alternative Part III: Spread The Wealth But Stick To Federal Basics

Populists decry distant bureaucratic manipulators, whether they are corporate or governmental. Progressives demand that a national agency take responsibility for services mostly because of the wide variation in state and local fiscal capacity (i.e., the per-capita wealth and income base). Uniformity is anathema to the former and merely a byproduct to the latter. Now, suppose for a moment that we could take care of both concerns by providing poor states with more equal financial resources, and do it much more directly than we do now. Why would we then continue to insult democracy and efficiency by loading the federal government with responsibilities for local services that have little cross-border import? The answer is that we wouldn't, and we shouldn't, and therein lies a means for achieving a leaner and more liberating federal agency budget.

Many federal programs, such as those relating to K-12 education, were created in large part to deal with state-to-state fiscal disparities, albeit indirectly and one category at a time. Other programs, such as mass transit capital assistance and urban development programs, were merely collective political acts by a few states and congressional districts to snare the less sensitive national tax base (i.e., taxpayers in the other 49 states), and thus spend what the state or local taxpayers had no interest in spending on their own. As we face trillion-dollar deficits as far as the eye can see, we need to be much more efficient than that with our federal dollars.

So how do we do that and still deal with the disparate state tax bases that provide the moral case for so many agencies and federal programs? A young Stephen Moore aptly addressed this question nearly 25 years ago in a paper suggesting that many federal programs be folded into "fiscal equity block grants" to states. This was long before Stephen founded his Club for Growth fund and (unfortunately) began knocking off moderate Republicans for principle and sport. He has since risen to prominence for much better reasons than that, and is now a member of the editorial board of the Wall Street Journal. His thinking is apparent each time the Journal offers a good faith alternative to bureaucracy for solving a social problem. Some of the suggestions below are the result of our long-ago conversations.

1. Eliminate the Department of Education and delegate its responsibilities to its counterparts at the state level. Assume a major efficiency gain from allowing the states to tailor programs to their special needs and the benefits of close-to-home governance.

2. Eliminate the Department of Housing and Urban Development and delegate its duties either to the state departments of economic development and/or to the local and regional authorities that had previously been its formula and discretionary grant recipients. Transfer the housing loan programs management to the newly federalized Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

3. Eliminate the Federal Transit Administration and return full control over local and regional mass transit development to the local and regional authorities that now serve as grantees, operators and administrators. Delete congressional transportation earmarks of all kinds using a presidential line item veto.

4. Eliminate the Department of Energy and shift responsibility for managing all nuclear weapons cleanup activities (which account for most of its non-strategic reserve budget) to the Department of Defense. Relocate responsibility for petroleum reserve management, research, energy regulation and other truly national functions to the Department of Commerce.

5. Eliminate Federal Corporate Welfare from all agencies, starting with most of the Department of Agriculture's crop production subsidy programs and extending to the Department of Commerce trade programs and Department of Energy research and subsidy. Eliminate corporate "double-dipping" whereby some firms collect both subsidy payments and tax credits for the same activity.

6. Spread the Wealth Via Interstate Fiscal Equity Grants: Taken together the above programs account for roughly between $120 billion and $160 billion per year in federal spending. Assume at least a 25 percent efficiency gain from returning full program control, selection, design and management to the respective state and local levels and consolidating the highlighted federal activities. Fold all of the remaining funds into highly flexible (i.e., allow each state to determine how the money would be used most effectively for its citizens) Interstate Fiscal Equity Grant and distribute them to states according to a measure of their fiscal capacity (i.e., poor states would receive more, rich states less).

The corporate welfare savings add another $70 billion to $100 billion to the efficiency gains from more direct state and local control over the spending and program design. This yields a total of between $100 billion and $140 billion in savings, which could more than double the meager $100 billion that Obama has asked from all federal agencies combined. Applying similar reassignment and reduction principles more broadly would undoubtedly increase the amount.

Please remember that what is important and common is not necessarily best handled nationally. Police and fire services, sanitation and water are at least as important as education to the quality of American life, but none of them are provided at the federal level except where the crime or asset crosses state lines. Why then, as important as K-12 education is, do we need a cabinet-level federal agency for it? Housing and development are clearly local matters, so why HUD? Mass transit is entirely within a metropolitan area, and where service areas cross state lines it is routinely managed by a regional, multi-jurisdictional authority, so why spend precious federal budget on a Federal Transit Administration? Finally, most of the billions in earmarked road projects (e.g., The Bridge To Nowhere) have nothing to do with interstate transportation.

If there's ever a time when the national government needs to focus on its true priorities, whether health care or budget deficits, it's right now. So let's bring government and essential services closer to the people and help save our children and grandchildren from downing in federal debt at the same time.

Congress again failed to do anything to reform bankruptcy laws to allow mortgages to be rewritten by bankruptcy judges, just like any other contract. It is remarkable, that in the midst of such an economic calamity, brought on by the greed and stupidity of the banks, that Congress can still not bring itself to provide even such modest relief for homeowners.

There is no plausible argument against temporarily changing the rules, except for the power of the banks. The same bankers who are crying about the sanctity of contract were pushing for having the bankruptcy rules rewritten retroactively in their favor four years ago in the bankruptcy reform bill passed in 2005. If Congress does not act to protect homeowners then there is a real possibility that the homeowners will take action themselves.

This is already happening in some parts of the country where homeowners are organizing Foreclosure resistance. Bill Moyers had a piece on Friday about one group, City Life/Vida Urbana, that has organized foreclosure blockades in Boston. When Congress hands hundreds of billions to the bankers that brought on this crisis, but does next to nothing for the primary victims, it is not encouraging respect for the law.

...The modern battles over court appointments are not really battles over judicial activism or restraint, or originalism...but simply battles over who the government will push around in the coming years.

Why is it that Supreme Court nominations are always such big battles now? Arguably, the most important thing any president will do is make these appointments. Some say the Court has risen in its importance because the justices are too activist, that they have their noses into too many things, that in fact they are making too much policy. This overlooks the question of why they are involved in so many areas of life and policy. And the answer to that, of course, is that government is too big, and doing too many things. Naturally lots of these disputes end up in the courts, and the courts have to decide them.

The modern battles over court appointments are not really battles over judicial activism or restraint, or originalism or some other theory of jurisprudence (say Justice Breyer's self-justifying "active liberty" business), but simply battles over who the government will push around in the coming years. Most people seem congenitally unable to just leave their neighbors alone, and government, with its monopoly on the use of force, is the most effective tool we have to push our neighbors around, at least when we control it. With the old constraints on government, such as the idea of a government of enumerated powers or federalism, largely kicked away, politics is now the war of all against all, all the time. It's inevitable, if sad, that justices will be called on to do battle in that war.

Given that President Obama believes that collectivist decisions are usually superior to individual choices, we can presume that he will pick a justice who will not impose any restraints on government, except to the extent that in particular instances it benefits "his side" if government is briefly constrained. As a result, our freedoms will continue to erode, and our politics will grow evermore divisive and bitter.

To say President Obama's pick will fundamentally "shape the court" is a bit premature and paradoxical. If we expect him to select an individual reflecting his center-left philosophy, then he's simply replacing one moderate with another - unless, of course, there's an ideological ambush similar to when the first Bush picked Souter.

There won't be any major shift in the immediate future. We could expect a political shift as hard core conservatives will use his nominee as a way to re-energize the base. This will change the game for Republicans in a big way if they're able to use it effectively. But, this affair will be the rehearsal for future picks, a way for opposition groups on the right to prepare for the next round. Hence, it's critical the President use his political capital cautiously or risk derailing major policy initiatives in the aftermath.

Future picks to replace Stevens, Kennedy and Ginsburg will ignite the most intense battles as conservatives watch their grip on the Court erode even further. Conventional wisdom might dictate the President picking a Latino for the High Court, a way to ease pressure from Latino groups feeling left out of the Administration. But, this is not a predictable President, if the past hundred days have taught us anything. He doesn't like doing what he's expected to do. Could he go for Judge Sonia Sotomayor and get a two-for-one deal: Hispanic and high powered legal credentials? Or Gov. Deval Patrick (D-MA), which would please African Americans long tired of Justice Thomas and civil rights activists worried about conservative dilution of key law? Maybe Gov. Jennifer Granholm (D-MI) in an effort to reach out to Michigan voters feeling burned by the unfolding automaker tragedy.

We know that he won't base his final selection on race alone. But, he will look for a balance between the political solution and the most qualified person.

Kenneth Wills (guest)
Maintenance/Student , TX:

In response to Steve Steckler, Here's the thing, Steve. See, Obama won the election. Now when Bush won the election conservatives said he should appoint conservative judges--and he did. Now that Obama is POTUS, conservativs say he should appoint conservative judges to appease and show "bipartisanship". Bipartisanship is overrated and, with the cult like behavior of conservatives, it's not likely to happen. No, Steve. If I'm Mr. Obama, I'd appoint the next coming of Karl Marx with a lifetime of experience working for Planned Parenthood. Elections have consequences, Mr. Steckler, and it's time conservatives payed the price for their dogmatic and ideologically driven policies we've had to endure the last 15 years.

Stanley Hirtle (guest)
Lawyer , OH:

The defeat by the financial industry of bankruptcy relief from toxic mortgages shows that all the cries of socialism from Republicans and the conservative opinion media are overblown. In fact we have campaign contribution democracy funded by capitalists. As Simon Johnson says in the latest Atlantic, http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200905/imf-advice, the financial industry is in charge here, as in a small emerging country, runs the country like a wholly owned corporation, takes on excessive risk for higher yields and counts on pushing its losses on to the government which it dominates. It is amazing to hear them talk about the protecting the sacredness of mortgage contracts from bankruptcy judges, while at the same time being quite willing to have the same bankruptcy judges set aside corporate contracts that auto manufacturers have with labor unions. One reason this double standard happens is that the capitalists have much more solidarity with each other than ordinary people, who begrudge their neighbor for getting a bad mortgage and buying some consumer purchase, but feel powerless about the multimillion dollar bonuses of AIG executives and hedge fund managers. We accept the privileges of this group and perhaps are cowed by the supposed brillance of the people who invented toxic assets that no one could understand but many knew how to manipulate. The government and financial industry have decided to leave the toxic assets overvalued, bail out the banks and investors and hope that the days of business as usual return. However thousands of foreclosures continue to happen, destroying families and communities, while the toxic assets sank the lending that is the lifeblood of employment and consumer purchases that drive the economy.

Jonathan Wolfman (guest)
Writer/Editor; Retired Teacher , MD:

It's important to recognize how rare and potentially good it is that the Chrysler bankruptcy involves a major labor union as a full partner with the corporation, Fiat, and the government, in the procedures and in the potential risks and gains. Under the plan, Chrysler U.A.W. members, having already given back many hard-won benefits and pay, will now hold a 55% share of the new corporation and its pension plan and retiree medical benefits have received protection from the U.S. Treasury. If the new auto company makes it, the union will also have a seat on the Chrysler board. That no one now has any way to guarantee that the new company will, in fact, make it--few suggest that the new cars enhanced by Fiat know-how will appear in showrooms earlier than 2012 and no one is willing to guarantee that between now and then, or even after that, Americans will buy Chryslers or Jeeps...this is just one measure of the group and personal stake the auto workers have in this. Lawyers, executives, and union leaders close to the procedure are quick to acknowledge how rare this apparent partnership is in the history of U.S. corporate bankruptcies. If if works not only will the company, the union, and a huge swath of the upper mid-west benefit, but it could help create a model for future labor-management-government relationships that would promote the overall national interest.

Eleanor LeCain (guest)
President, NewWayUSA , DC:

Elizabeth Sherman is right when she says we need someone on the Supreme Court who understands economic issues and who is not an apologist for greed. It is greed that has severely weakened the national and global economy, and caused pain to millions of people who have lost their jobs, lost their health care, and lost their homes. Obama himself said during the campaign that in selecting a nominee for the court he would look for someone who understands what like is life for the little people.

Lee Olyer (guest)
Engineer , CO:

Joe Biden's gaffes and the Left's hypocrisy. Six months ago, you would have thought that the office of VP was more important than the presidency according to the mainstream media. The Left said Sarah Palin had no business holding such a high and dignified post since they were sure she would only embarrass the country (since John McCain already had one foot in the grave). Now we have Joe Biden stumbling from one verbal blunder to the next with no concern for the country's "image" from the press corps. His aides and the White House have their hands full following him around to clarify what he "really" meant to say. Would George Bush or Sarah Palin get the same media pass if they were making the same unfounded, outrageous statements?

Sly Steedman (guest)
Business Manager-Export/Imports , CA:

The benefits to private Health Care are many.1. Managed Care 2. Negotiated Rates 3.Provider networks which exclude low quality. Private Health Care is run as a business and tries to combat fraud, in fact has very low fraud.
Public or Government run Health Care is 1. All about just paying the Bills presented to it, it lets low quality in. 2. Fixes Rates, no managed care. 3. Excessive fraud, in fact MediCare is estimated to exceed 10 Billion in fraud and in excess of 30 Billion in payment mistakes annually.( Estimated it could be higher.)
Public or government run Health Care is currently excessively fraudulent and does not provide the managed care it needs to for citizens. Government is not productive or efficient and the cost to taxpayers is enormous waste with fraud.
Private Health Care is much more productive, efficient, and managed. The government needs to not run the Heath Care in the US, but provide each citizen with a tax rebate, credit or annual dollar investment plan for Health Care expenses based on a citizens' age, family with children,and tax base.

Carl Owen (guest)
Mailman , OK:

In a few short weeks, after Al Franken is sworn in as the junior Senator from Minnesota, we can offer the Republicans a real sweet deal. They can now work from home. Telecommute if they wish or just watch Wheel of Fortune and The Price is Right all day (plus the soap of their choice). No need to bother staffing an office. Forget arguing over parking spots, just lay in bed and we'll direct deposit their check every two weeks. The Democrats on the other hand have their work cut out for them. With an unassailable position any progress, or lack thereof, will fall squarely upon their shoulders. The real opposition to shape and mold policy rests mainly with moderate and conservative Democrats. So now committee rooms can post signs outside their doors stating "Republicans Need Not Apply". Talk about reducing the size of government!!!

Kristina Bolkeny (guest)
Legal Asst. , FL:

I am surprised that mortage lenders are not more willing and even proactive toward home loan modification in lieu of foreclosure. While I am not completely sold on granting bankruptcy judges the jurisdiction to modify home loans, the remedy itself just seems to make sense from a business standpoint. From a lender perspective, I cannot imagine that a huge surplus of vacant homes in a down market is good for the bottom line. Foreclosures are costly and time consuming and yield no capital during the process. The end result for many homeowners not able to get modifications has been to file Chapter 7 bankruptcy so as to avoid a large deficiency judgment. The mortgage company then does not recoup any attorney's fees and costs, now pays the property tax and insurance on the property and must write off the loss between what they are able to sell the property for and what was owed. This of course assumes they can even sell it. Most of these homes are sitting vacant. I would imagine that even as an asset on their books, the value is reflected at current market not what the inflated mortgage amount was prior to the foreclosure. This logic leads me back to my point. Why not work with homeowners. It seems to be a better solution then the foregoing scenario. Not to mention that when people are forced to file chapter 7, assuming they qualify, they discharge all unsecured debt (mainly credit card) so the banks lose yet again. Believe me, I am in no way sympathesizing just trying to understand what appears to be skewed logic by the financial institutions in this regard.
Perhaps legislation to assist in modification would play out better at the local level rather than the federal level. In Northwest Florida, hard hit by foreclosures, our Chief Judge of the First Circuit has implemented a mandatory mediation for all foreclosures filed against homeowners in primary residences only. The burden to pay for the $750.00 mediation is on the lender. This does not guarantee a modification would result but it is another bite at the apple for the homeowner and lender to try and work out mutually appealing terms.

Jeffrey Minch (guest)
President/CEO public company , TX:

Inexperience is an expensive problem to resolve. The Treasury has never had a role in regulating and nurturing the banks in America. That has been traditionally the role of the FDIC, the Comptroller of the Currency and the FED. In the current environment, the whip hand nonetheless resides in the Treasury and in particular in the Sec Treasury --- an inexperienced beaucracy and an inexperienced beauracrat. A lethal combination .
This realignment of power, knowledge and experience would be tantamount to making the US Coast Guard in charge of military operations in Afghanistan. Sure they wear uniforms to work and sure they have some passing familiarity w/ all things military but they are simply not the right folks to be in charge of a complex military-political battlefield.
Eventually the problem will either resolve itself by folks waking up to the realities of what the laws and regulations say or because the approach simply does not work. There will be a cost.
This hubris is found in a myriad of other actions taken by this administration. What do they really know about cars? Car buyers? Credit default swaps? The regulation of the mortgage markets? Securities regulation? Bankruptcy court?
All of these areas of government have regulators or market forces which are paramount in the resolution of their unique technical problems. And who may have more than a bit of untapped experience to boot.
Inexperience is a very easy problem to cure but the tuition is very, very expensive.
A Harvard law degree is a very, very impressive credential but it will not cut the mustard when the Harvard MBAs are squeezing the last dime out of the government's naivete. Most lawyers work for folks who have MBAs and this will be no different. May God help us all.

Z. Julia PATON (guest)
RETIRED :

Right -of- centre, libertarian independents have no place to go. Although some of them voted for Obama because they wanted health and education reform, the fact is that his approach is much too interventionistic for most libertarians. It is coming out more and more that the present administration is a concern for those that would like to keep the government off their backs. On the other hand, the conservative agenda of the extreme right wing is too self righteous for those that like to mind their own business and want others to do the same.
This situation will be further clarified by the appointments to the Supreme Court and proposed gay marriage laws. Study the Canadian experience on this point. Once this right exists anyone who wants no part of it could be accused of hate speech or discrimination. In Canada, if a Knights of Columbus hall refuses to rent for a gay wedding, they are liable for discrimination and have been taken to court; if a pastor speaks against gay marriage in his church on Sunday, he could be accused of hate speech and his freedom of speech could be gone. And would churches retain their preferential tax status if they break the law of the land?
Teaching very young children about the virtues of gay marriage is routine in some Canadian school districts and textbooks have been redesigned to reflect alternative life styles. It is not a matter of live and let live the way libertarians like it. It is a matter of the gay way or the highway. Way to go liberals!!! Our President says he believes in civil union, which most libertarians probably think it is OK. Let us see if that holds, or if a new definition of marriage is imposed on everyone.

Kenneth Wills (guest)
Maintenance/ Student , TX:

Mr. Zogby, thanks for your poll numbers but, I think you have overlooked a more critical analysis of your numbers. Namely, the questions are far too abstract to have much value. Saying that a resolution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is "important", or that the conflict "negatively affects the U.S." or that both sides are entitled to "equal rights" are really not meaningful except as a tool to discern the effects of mainstream, conservative or liberal media. This is because the electorate's Middle Eastern education is a product of said media. Basically, it's not accurate to say that this is a reflection of the beliefs of the electorate; rather, it's reflective of what they are being told to believe. However, it does tell us how these positions feed into the respective ideological approaches because, despite the fact that these are largely media driven beliefs, they are informed by the conservative and liberal intelligentsia, respectively. Look closely and you can see the neocon approach to problem solving from the conservative respondents--including the religious overtones; and, the same can be said of the your liberal group[s]. The difference is that we already know the conservative approach is dogmatic and doesn't work. That's what the election was about.

Carl Owen (guest)
Mailman , OK:

Epiphanies come from strange places, like a pizza restaurant in Virginia. The Republicans are claiming that they aren't "re branding" themselves but looking for answers during the first meeting of the National Council for a New America. First there is nothing wrong with the "Old" America, it's the Republicans who have problems. And the first problem is message. Since Ronnie Raygun was president we've listened to story after tale of woe and despair heaped on the country by liberals and those perfidious "Washington Insiders". Never mind that for most of the last couple of decades Republicans were those insiders. I will give Jeb Bush and the crew high marks for realizing that the base dwells on past glory and hungers for a return but that ain't gonna happen. The biggest problem facing the Republicans is changing their philosophy. They've spent over twenty years of telling people why they shouldn't vote for Democrats and little time telling people why they should vote for them. And when they did get a chance to strut their stuff they promptly acted just like the people they were mocking. I still think the GOP needs a time out for a couple of years, at least until the bad taste they left in peoples' mouths has passed. Oh and bury Ronald Reagan for God's sake and quit picking at his bones, it's unseemly and a little ghoulish.

Phil Gonzalez (guest)
retired , TX:

I believe it was President Obama who said he goes to sleep at night thinking of ways to protect the American people. The swine flu has to fit in there somewhere that endangers the lives of American's. Or was President Obama just talking about the fail policies of Bush that endangered this country. This was the opportune time for President Obama to show, what he can do to protect this country since the swine flu happened on his watch and wasn't inherited from Bush. Instead, we heard some lame excuse about not closing the door after some infected had already entered this country. As long as President Obama can blame someone, he's all talk. Once he's put to the test, without past policies to blame, he drags his feet because he doesn't want to be held accountable for what might be interpreted as fail policies of his administration. Many times President Obama has mentioned global effort. President Obama isn't going to act and in a way he should until he gets signs that the rest of the world is going to take more drastic measures. We're all heard as the world turns. Well, President Obama is slowly turning to keep pace with what happens in other countries abroad. After all, arrogance is something we don't want to show by closing the borders. Instead, it's better to show the world this administration is nothing like the previous one, so come on world, give us your sick.

Linda Conley (guest)
Homemaker/Reader , OR:

My late father and brother always loved Jack Kemp, very much so. May God rest his soul. What a man, indeed. Lord, love him.

Thomas Hinkhouse (guest)
retired teacher , KS:

A question to Larry J Sabato. Do you do séances with the founding fathers? Are you psychic? How ever anybody comes up with the illogical thought processes that they think they know what anybody meant as concerns The United States Constitution, The Bible, any other religious relic, etc. is only within the prevue of a person who is a narcissist full of hubris. I really think you are smarter than your comment makes you seem let alone a narcissist. As much as I dislike the personality of Justice Scalia I agree with his reading and not reading into The United States Constitution what is there and what is not there. Actually term limits for the President should be illegal except an Amendment to The Constitution changed that. Maybe you should suggest that route instead?

More POLITICO Arena

About the Arena

The Arena is a cross-party, cross-discipline forum for intelligent and lively conversation about political and policy issues. Contributors have been selected by POLITICO staff and editors. David Mark, Arena's moderator, is a Senior Editor at POLITICO. Each morning, POLITICO sends a question based on that day's news to all contributors.